Posted by jkumpulanian on 4/17/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):My brother-in-law and I both coach in the same world (same conference even). Could we collude and scout different states and share info? Of course we could. Do we? No, we don't. Call it a gentlemen's agreement. I'm sure that there are people who do share info on recruits, etc. You are never going to stop this. But why allow people to make multiple IDs in the same world to make this sort of "collusion" easier?

I propose we don't let family members compete in the same world. Family members talk together, why should we make it "easier" for them to share recruiting information? One family member, one world!!

Lofl, this is a joke, right? This is beyond policeable, and the premise is ridiculous. Some/many of you are going off the deep end in reaction to what happened.

I've got a couple Lincolns in my pocket so *tosses 2 cents on the table* allow me to take this where I will.

I know this will surprise a lot of you, but the initial reason I ever created a second account was because I got a week and/or 30 day ban from the forums...one of the times for redlining what I considered to be an off-topic/irrelevant post by seble LOL. I created 2 other "second" accounts when the FREEHD's were available to pursue jobs in other divisions/worlds and to peek to see if I could get FSS to help myself out as well lol.

If you made FSS free for everyone, there's essentially no reason to "cheat" and I think this fact/point alone defeats any "strategy" argument you get for purchasing FSS the way it's currently setup. I wouldn't have complained if I was in dshook's shoes...it's unfortunate what happened to him, but he still signed 2 recruits, and the 2 "poachers" still filled 6 of their 8 'ships each. It's a bad break, but I wouldn't have given him 2 recruits he missed out on...I disagree with the resolution. If someone is going to go out of their way to attack you within this game somehow, "poaching" or otherwise, rise up and find a way to beat it...don't run and tell dad...

The only reason why this is being addressed is because of FSS. FSS never has made much sense to me, but is an obvious necessity.

Having multiple teams in the same world, even for the most honest user, is just too tempting. It just is. And it will occur where info paid to benefit Team A will impact Team B, even once.

And even if the intent is to not break the law for the most honest of users, on occassion we've all gone more than the speed limit and feel relieved when we are not ticketed after spotting a patrol car. I rather doubt we stop and turn ourselves in after escaping a would-be ticket. Using FSS to benefit multiple teams will occur.

Although I haven't posted in some time, I've always felt recruiting is all about the value of ratings. In other words, trying to figure out if it's more valuable to have a 50/50 ath/spd guy with 60 REB and 50 DEF is better than a 40/60 ath/spd guy with 65 reb and 45 def. For me, the fact that no two recruits will have the same makeup of ratings is the most intriguing part of the game. The fact there are a mind-boggling number of combinations that any recruit could have is enough variability.

To that end, I was surprised when FSS was rolled out in its current form because of two major red flags imho:

1) How can a two-bit scouting service be virtually 99% accurate with 1800 players when college coaches and pro scouts spend millions of dollars and hundreds of hours and miss "potential" on a regular basis. Undrafted players succeed many times while "can't miss" first rounders miss regularly.

2) The cost structure by state, not division and in the global world in which we live, the exclusion of PR and international recruits.

I think the better play would be that FSS would include info on all recruits (or make it free). Again, my feeling is that recruiting should be more about which combination of ratings will help win games, not the knowledge that Alaska and Hawaii have 0 DIII and 5 DII teams and could be a nice place to recruit for DIII schools, etc. Or the fact Utah has 5 DI teams and not one in a big six conference....etc. So much of paying for FSS is knowing this stuff and which states make the most sense to purchase FSS; And that makes us take our eye off the ball, which is the combination of ratings that will lead to success or failure (or trying to wait to see if a nice recruit drops to your level, etc....)

If FSS doesn't change I vote for no alias users, not even 1000 miles apart. Too tempting. Doesn't solve anything and imho any success could be compromised. But maybe it's more about winning than how you play.

But the best option is to open FSS and that way WIS can still collect revenue from alias users and not compromise the integrity of that decision.

Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 2:55:00 PM (view original):I've got a couple Lincolns in my pocket so *tosses 2 cents on the table* allow me to take this where I will.

I know this will surprise a lot of you, but the initial reason I ever created a second account was because I got a week and/or 30 day ban from the forums...one of the times for redlining what I considered to be an off-topic/irrelevant post by seble LOL. I created 2 other "second" accounts when the FREEHD's were available to pursue jobs in other divisions/worlds and to peek to see if I could get FSS to help myself out as well lol.

If you made FSS free for everyone, there's essentially no reason to "cheat" and I think this fact/point alone defeats any "strategy" argument you get for purchasing FSS the way it's currently setup. I wouldn't have complained if I was in dshook's shoes...it's unfortunate what happened to him, but he still signed 2 recruits, and the 2 "poachers" still filled 6 of their 8 'ships each. It's a bad break, but I wouldn't have given him 2 recruits he missed out on...I disagree with the resolution. If someone is going to go out of their way to attack you within this game somehow, "poaching" or otherwise, rise up and find a way to beat it...don't run and tell dad...

That's kind of the whole point...it wasn't "within the game"'s rules. It was obviously and blatantly against the rules.

Supposedly it was the same guy with 2 teams...it's just not a big deal to me, but let me get this straight, you're saying that if he only poached 3 guys with 1 team that you'd be cool with this?

I'm going to expound on this a bit, just kind of a "what if" scenario (befitting of this site). Suppose it was 2 different guys that did this. According to dshook, this happened over a period of recruiting cycles, not just all at once...so let's say you're ho-humming through team profiles of the top 25 and you see some recruits you want are considering that team, 2 that are considering that team only, and 2 that are considering 2 teams. If you feel that all 4 recruits are worthy and that perhaps the team/user in question has overspent/spread his money too thin, thus acting on a hunch to go after the guys you want...which recruits are you going to go after...the ones considering 1 team, the team that you feel has no money left, or the the ones considering 2 teams? It isn't so much a question of collusion as it is/would be smart/logical business. Again, just a "what if" to get you thinking.

And if anything, bringing all this to light is going to make viewing top teams' recruits a bit of a fad in this game, it could be our "wildcat" offense.

Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):Supposedly it was the same guy with 2 teams...it's just not a big deal to me, but let me get this straight, you're saying that if he only poached 3 guys with 1 team that you'd be cool with this?

I'm going to expound on this a bit, just kind of a "what if" scenario (befitting of this site). Suppose it was 2 different guys that did this. According to dshook, this happened over a period of recruiting cycles, not just all at once...so let's say you're ho-humming through team profiles of the top 25 and you see some recruits you want are considering that team, 2 that are considering that team only, and 2 that are considering 2 teams. If you feel that all 4 recruits are worthy and that perhaps the team/user in question has overspent/spread his money too thin, thus acting on a hunch to go after the guys you want...which recruits are you going to go after...the ones considering 1 team, the team that you feel has no money left, or the the ones considering 2 teams? It isn't so much a question of collusion as it is/would be smart/logical business. Again, just a "what if" to get you thinking.

And if anything, bringing all this to light is going to make viewing top teams' recruits a bit of a fad in this game, it could be our "wildcat" offense.

Yes, absolutely. If one team does it, it sucks for dshook, but it's a legal (and potentially good) strategy. If two guys who are not colluding do it, same thing. The fact that they were colluding (which means, for instance, they knew about each other to avoid accidentally jumping on the same recruit in the same cycle) is what makes it appropriate for CS to step in.

Posted by phillyboy107 on 4/17/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):It is a bout time we got rid of it! I cant stand seeing teams getting 20+ states due to more teams in a world!

i scout 20 states on a single team pretty regularly, especially in d1...

anyway, i think rails & co make a good point about FSS. it would alleviate a lot of the concern. i personally believe its a major element of strategy that has been added, one of the only ones, too. of course, potential shook players up a bit, you cant shape them in practice like you used to, so the whole element of valuing recruit's abilities different that rails talked about was enhanced, to some extent (also taken away from, from practice planning perspective and such - but it made it more important in recruiting itself).

i feel like between FSS and evals to find high/highs, there is a major tradeoff - use money to find the best players, or to battle for the best players. i really like that part of the game and would hate to see it go, personally. d1 recruiting was always this auction style, and it still is mostly, especially for top d1 teams. but for other d1 teams, you can choose to spend an extra 5-15K looking for better players you can get without such a fight, and its a perfectly viable strategy (and im really liking it over the past 6 months, actually). i dont like going back to the auction style recruiting with nothing else to add flavor. i guess evals to find high/highs would still exist, but still.

Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):Supposedly it was the same guy with 2 teams...it's just not a big deal to me, but let me get this straight, you're saying that if he only poached 3 guys with 1 team that you'd be cool with this?

I'm going to expound on this a bit, just kind of a "what if" scenario (befitting of this site). Suppose it was 2 different guys that did this. According to dshook, this happened over a period of recruiting cycles, not just all at once...so let's say you're ho-humming through team profiles of the top 25 and you see some recruits you want are considering that team, 2 that are considering that team only, and 2 that are considering 2 teams. If you feel that all 4 recruits are worthy and that perhaps the team/user in question has overspent/spread his money too thin, thus acting on a hunch to go after the guys you want...which recruits are you going to go after...the ones considering 1 team, the team that you feel has no money left, or the the ones considering 2 teams? It isn't so much a question of collusion as it is/would be smart/logical business. Again, just a "what if" to get you thinking.

And if anything, bringing all this to light is going to make viewing top teams' recruits a bit of a fad in this game, it could be our "wildcat" offense.

I stopped reading after the first couple words. There is no "supposedly". Seble actually did something for once and discovered it was the same person. You can't seem to grasp even the most simple of facts.

Again, it was only said to be one user. If it was/were 2, I still think collusion is hard to prove, since the actions didn't all happen in one recruiting cycle. Again let's look at this from the "played fairly perspective"...4 recruits are considering just one team...1 guy sees a couple guys he likes, and he recruits 2 of them, thus 2 are now considering 2 teams and the other 2 are still considering 1. Guy #2 sees this turn of events in the next cycle or 2, also deems the recruits to be solid/worthy and that dshook might be strapped for cash, so he goes after the other 2, because he'd rather be in a 2-way battle with a guy with no money, than a 3-way battle with a guy that just hopped on the recruits.

I don't really think dshook should have gotten any of his recruits back, while perhaps carefully planned, he still gradually lost his recruits in a, what I will argue, fair and square manner...cruits were considering only him, cruits were considering 2 teams, cruits were considering other team, cruits sign with other team. Malicious intent is still hard to argue, while it just turned out to be a savvy move by an inexperienced player. Again I think dshook rested on the laurels of his A+ prestige a bit/a lot as well...even in his initial post he said he's never been bollocked off of a guy with a lower prestige, so because he didn't expect it, he didn't think it could happen.

I would win a court case with this, arguing that this wasn't collusive. 1 guy with 2 teams picked off recruits from a sleeping giant of a team that never woke up.

Posted by jkumpulanian on 4/17/2013 11:57:00 AM (view original):My brother-in-law and I both coach in the same world (same conference even). Could we collude and scout different states and share info? Of course we could. Do we? No, we don't. Call it a gentlemen's agreement. I'm sure that there are people who do share info on recruits, etc. You are never going to stop this. But why allow people to make multiple IDs in the same world to make this sort of "collusion" easier?

I propose we don't let family members compete in the same world. Family members talk together, why should we make it "easier" for them to share recruiting information? One family member, one world!!

Lofl, this is a joke, right? This is beyond policeable, and the premise is ridiculous. Some/many of you are going off the deep end in reaction to what happened.

Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 3:43:00 PM (view original):Again, it was only said to be one user. If it was/were 2, I still think collusion is hard to prove, since the actions didn't all happen in one recruiting cycle. Again let's look at this from the "played fairly perspective"...4 recruits are considering just one team...1 guy sees a couple guys he likes, and he recruits 2 of them, thus 2 are now considering 2 teams and the other 2 are still considering 1. Guy #2 sees this turn of events in the next cycle or 2, also deems the recruits to be solid/worthy and that dshook might be strapped for cash, so he goes after the other 2, because he'd rather be in a 2-way battle with a guy with no money, than a 3-way battle with a guy that just hopped on the recruits.

I don't really think dshook should have gotten any of his recruits back, while perhaps carefully planned, he still gradually lost his recruits in a, what I will argue, fair and square manner...cruits were considering only him, cruits were considering 2 teams, cruits were considering other team, cruits sign with other team. Malicious intent is still hard to argue, while it just turned out to be a savvy move by an inexperienced player. Again I think dshook rested on the laurels of his A+ prestige a bit/a lot as well...even in his initial post he said he's never been bollocked off of a guy with a lower prestige, so because he didn't expect it, he didn't think it could happen.

I would win a court case with this, arguing that this wasn't collusive. 1 guy with 2 teams picked off recruits from a sleeping giant of a team that never woke up.

its really savvy when one person uses 2 teams within 200 miles to carpetbomb their targets...

CS says it is the same person, and one of the teams is being force dropped due to the existing 1000 mile rule. Which part of that is still confusing you trevor?

Posted by colonels19 on 4/17/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):Supposedly it was the same guy with 2 teams...it's just not a big deal to me, but let me get this straight, you're saying that if he only poached 3 guys with 1 team that you'd be cool with this?

I'm going to expound on this a bit, just kind of a "what if" scenario (befitting of this site). Suppose it was 2 different guys that did this. According to dshook, this happened over a period of recruiting cycles, not just all at once...so let's say you're ho-humming through team profiles of the top 25 and you see some recruits you want are considering that team, 2 that are considering that team only, and 2 that are considering 2 teams. If you feel that all 4 recruits are worthy and that perhaps the team/user in question has overspent/spread his money too thin, thus acting on a hunch to go after the guys you want...which recruits are you going to go after...the ones considering 1 team, the team that you feel has no money left, or the the ones considering 2 teams? It isn't so much a question of collusion as it is/would be smart/logical business. Again, just a "what if" to get you thinking.

And if anything, bringing all this to light is going to make viewing top teams' recruits a bit of a fad in this game, it could be our "wildcat" offense.

I stopped reading after the first couple words. There is no "supposedly". Seble actually did something for once and discovered it was the same person. You can't seem to grasp even the most simple of facts.

How colonels fails to see where this is blatantly wrong (forget opinion, it's one guy with two teams within 1000 miles, that is in itself against the rules... no more evidence is needed) is absurd. I'm glad the situation was resolved for dshook, but I think I'm done with this thread...